The Observation Deck

Grace,

What if you were in that 1%....and more importantly... you had both the "desire" and "ability" to make a difference?

Interesting you see it as a 1% issue. I see it as a 100% issue. 55,000 citizens and Lakewood's future could be deprived of an outstanding leader(s) at a time when many say our community needs these skills the most.

To your point, why was this not raised by previous Charter Commissions? I would like to hear more. I understand Lynn's point, but I think Phil made outstanding points.

Hardly a big issue.

I disagree. While the number of the population this affects is extremely low, the fact still remains that they are tax payers and they should have the opportunity to seek a seat on council.

You'll have to do better than that to convince me.

Many, many communities have restrictions on public employees also holding public office.

A serious contender for a a "leadership" position would be able to run for office, just not while they held their other publicly funded position.

Phil,

The question wasn't who voted for who, but a parent being active in politics having their position negatively affect their child. I remember Councilman Fitzgerald commenting about students holding signs about Don't elect my teacher. Or parents holding signs at polling places for the opposing candidate.

Or a parent taking an opposite position in an issue from the council person that is their child's teacher. For example, being against t the income tax, or against eminent domain.

There are two potential problems. 1) the teacher actually taking it out on the child, or 2) the parent claiming the teacher took it out on their child.

It was to avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety. I'm not saying that a teacher shouldn't be considered, but this is a serious issue to consider.

Grace,

By the time I am done, you will be sorry you brought this up. Happy slogging.

suzanne metelko wrote:The state charter governs the City Schools.

The city charter governs the City.

The state charter DOES NOT restrict city employees who live in Lakewood from running for school board.

The city charter DOES restrict school employees who live in Lakewood from running for council.

These above statements are essentially accurate, although I'm not sure what the "state charter" is. I don't know if she is referring to state law, or some charter of a state department of education or school board that governs local school boards. I have asked a school board member about this, but I still don't understand the source of their governance.

suzanne metelko wrote:From what I can tell, the city charter has had this in effect since 1910. I have speculated that perhaps in 1910 the majority of school employees were women and this was suffrage issue, but that is pure speculation and I haven't done any research to substantiate that.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Suzanne and I are going to disagree on this. I am at a slight disadvantage because I don't have the petition language, but I assure you, Grace, that this is not a women's issue, and Suzanne's "nutshell" cannot contain the complexities of this issue.

I have had the great privilege to do two charter reviews, once as a member of the Lakewood Citizens Governance Task Force, and most recently as a member of the Lakewood Charter Commission.

I have talked about charter issues on this and other forums for years. I feel compelled to jump in again. I will present my response in a number of installations on this forum. This one will be introductory and informational. In fairness to other Charter Commission members, I want to try to separate commission recommendations from my own opinions, and those of other citizens.

You can skip the next four paragraphs if you already know what a Charter Commission does.

The Lakewood City Charter is, more or less, our city's constitution. It defines the mechanics of our government and provides us with a legal platform for home rule (Parma does not have a charter. State law defines their government.). A Lakewood Charter Commission, by charter rules, is convened every ten years to review and make recommendations about the charter.

The charter review process is intensive, comprehensive, and very time consuming. It involves lots of correspondence, interviews and forums with the mayor, city administrators, council members, city employees, city commissions, the judge, civic groups, and private citizens to gather questions and suggestions for changes to update and improve city government.

That initiates the research process. The commission looks for any resources in our city, or others, and in state and local law. We may contact academics, politicians, or administrators from almost anywhere to get answers. Our administrative point person was Mary Haas McGraw from the Law Department. Ask her how many hours she spent helping us with research data and legal opinions. I'm sure she's glad that the Charter Commission only meets every ten years. (She did a fantastic job. I hope her family forgives us keeping her so many late nights.)

From all of this, we try to craft solutions. After great debate, more interviews, more research, and more debate, we try to get a consensus and language that can be presented to City Council for consideration. Council may place any, all, or none of the commission's recommendations on the ballot for voter approval. Council may, at any time, put their own proposed charter amendments on a ballot for voter approval.

Okay, back to the issue at hand.

Councilperson Demro made an appeal to the Charter Commission to allow City Council members to work for Lakewood Schools, which is currently disallowed by the Lakewood City Charter.

I provide this excerpt:

ARTICLE XXIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 3. ACTIVITY OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES RESTRICTED.
The Mayor, members of Council and the directors of departments shall not, during their term of office, hold any other public office except that of notary public, Reserve Corps of the United States or member of the State Militia, nor shall they hold public employment with the City or the Lakewood Board of Education.

I encourage you to look up the full text at:

http://www.ci.lakewood.oh.us/citygovern ... arter.html

The commission considered the Ryan Demro proposal, but decided to not recommend a change.

The commission did make innumerable other recommendations for charter changes to City Council. Council chose a few of the recommendations to put on last November's ballot. (I'm leaving a lot out here. What was not put on the ballot could provide discussion on this forum for months.)

During their deliberations, Council had a Committee of the Whole meeting that I attended. Other Charter Commission members were there, including Lynn Farris. I was asked to comment on some of their proposals. I think Lynn also commented. We kept our comments and clarifications within the context of commission consensus.

At that meeting, Ryan proposed that Council place a charter amendment that would lift the school employment restriction on the ballot. I was asked by Council President Seelie to express the Commission opinion. I relayed that the Commission consensus was that city council meetings were sometimes contentious environments, and that they can cause animosity. If it were ever perceived that a child was treated differently by a teacher because of something political, it would hurt the child, the teacher, the schools, and the city. If a child got a low grade from their teacher/councilperson, a relative or friend may complain that it was because they disagreed on sewers, or some other issue. It wouldn't even have to be based on wrongful action by the teacher.

Lynn Farris has expressed this as a concern of the commission in earlier posts on this thread.

Ryan had invited a number of people to speak in support of his proposal.

I was scolded by an invited teacher in the audience, saying that a professional teacher would never do that. I respect teachers. My comment was not personal, and certainly not an indictment of teachers. It was about perceptions and protections.

A non-teaching union representative from Lakewood Schools spoke against Ryan's proposal.

Council President Seelie brought up the fact that City Council, including Ryan, had just voted to abate substantial inspection and permit fees to the school system for their new construction. He said that Ryan, because he is educated as a teacher, and would like to teach in Lakewood, might have most to gain by this charter amendment. He said that it just didn't look right, in light of the abatements that had just been voted on, that he would seek employment in the schools. Seelie, and other council members expressed concern about these types of conflicts of interest. Some recounted times when they recused themselves on some issues where conflicts of interest might be perceived. (My recollection is that the abatements totaled 2 or 3 million dollars. Is that possible?)

(Lynn, et al, I hope you are reading this. I'm counting on you to check the accuracy of my recollections. I'm working without notes, and without a net. Please post any corrections.)

City Council voted against Ryan's proposed amendment.

Now we have the aforementioned petition to discuss.

My opinions will show up in subsequent postings.

Steve

I'm not sorry I brought it up. If this ends up on the ballot, I need to know if I should vote for it or not. I'll assume you were trying to be funny.

A non-teaching union representative from Lakewood Schools spoke against Ryan's proposal.

What was the gist of the argument of this person? If the very people that this would affect see it as a valuable restriction, it seems to indicate to be that there is a very good reason for it.

I certainly could see where issues could arise where your loyalty to the schools or your employment there conflicted with your fiduciary duty as a council person. Stating that you would refrain from voting on these issues basically renders you worthless as a councilperson.

What about tax and money issues? We know how contentious these can be. How can a council person and a school employee serve two masters?

Hi, Grace.

My logic works this way.
The city and schools are two entirely separate entities. City decisions affect schools, but only indirectly. It's hard to envision a real conflict of interest, in which a school employee can enrich themselves by serving on council.
To take it a step further, council decisions conceivably COULD effect Lakewood Hospital employees, with its quasi-public status, but they are not barred from council service. That seems inconsistent.
Second, it doesn't work in reverse. As Suzanne pointed out, a city employee is on the school board, and the republic somehow survives.
The argument that a teacher can or would somehow discriminate against a child of a political opponent seems a bit far-fetched.
Finally, school workers are truly "on the ground" in Lakewood. They see and hear the issues first hand as few of us do.
Basically though, my argument is that, while both are public employees, one really doesn't impact the other.
Don't know if that changes your thinking, but it's my best shot.

Joan

Here is an example that pops in my mind.

How could you effectively campaign for a city tax increase that you know is needed when at the same time a school levy looms?

We see here and eleswhere how hot those issues can be. Can you honestly say that the person serving in both capacities would not have some conflict of interest here?

What if they were up at the same time, or nearly, and the passage of one would affect the passage of the other?

How can a person be expected to fully devote their energies to the passage of one knowing that the other may not then pass? Do you serve your constituents or your employer?

This is just one occasion I could think of but many more uncomfortable situations like this could arise.

Grace.

That's a good, legitimate point. However, I'd also point out that city tax increases come up a lot more infrequently than school levies. The last city tax issue came up in the early 80s, from what I gather. One happenstance in a quarter century doesn't seem to me to be a rationale for excluding all school employees all the time.
All told, I think that having a pool of intelligent, engaged candidates (who don't tend to have political ambitions, BTW) outweighs the possibility of a convoluted conflict of interest.
Still, I appreciate your point of view. You always need to consider the hidden flaw.

First off, thanks Stephen for such a thorough history of the Charter.

Secondly, I agree with Joan. I think if a teacher can abuse their position then anyone on Council can potentially abuse their Council job or their "day job" in order to benefit themselves or hurt others. I see the concern but I don't see why only Lakewood teachers/school employees fall under this restriction. In fact, schools aren't some for-profit business where a politician can use their position to better the business while they "serve the public." We clearly see this in Washington today so we know it happens (hi, Halliburton!) but I don't see how the entire school district benefits unfairly by potentially having a person on Council. Sure that person might be favorable to education issues but no more than a council person who works as a lawyer or works in the sign business (! !) would have some personal bias towards their own career path. We simply hope that in electing someone we are finding someone good enough to put their personal needs aside in favor of what the city needs. If we can't ask that of a teacher, who can we ask this of today? I am not saying teachers are holy and beyond the pale but they are no more evil and corruptable than the next career person.

Phil

Steve,

On my way to the office now. I'll get the language to Jim soon.

In the meantime, I look at this charter provision as another "save the voter from himself" issue. Kind of like term limits. If the voters can't make up their minds about the integrity, veracity and quality of the candidate, then they shouldn't vote. I don't favor trying to "focus" voters. Limiting people's options should be a last resort.

And I was very clear that the 1910 stuff was purely me speculating. Just trying to give some food for thought. Context is important and I think you have to scrape off the 100 years of legislative buildup to get down to the basics (context 1910 vs 2006). You know what they say, "All things being equal, the simplest answer is generally the right answer". But I haven't any facts to back that up.

Suzanne

Dr. Davis:

Very powerful display of your experience and knowledge of city charterology!

There is a meeting with the President and Provost of the University of Akron at City Hall in a half hour.

I will advise immediate conference of a Doctorate in City Charterology.

Or should we wait for Dr. O'Bryan to summon the University of Beijing?

Kenneth Warren

Perhaps the solution is in a compromise.

I hate to do so, but I do agree that there would be the potential for perceived abuses by a teacher that also held, or ran for, political posts. Mind you I said perceived. Even if this teacher had an absolutely spotless record, and could substantiate all of his/her actions, they would still likely be accused of wrongdoing when they were in a position to discipline a child, or mark a poor grade for a child, etc...

Parents are funny creatures. For example: while running a number of restaurants, I would see the teen groups come in periodically in the evening (after the movies and before the curfew) and, in some cases, get themselves up to no good. INVARIABLY.... and I do mean that literally, when I asked a minor to leave the restaurant for poor behavior, the parents would call the next day and accuse me of harassment, of abuse, of being discriminatory, of not having enough staff to watch over the children, and on and on and on... the fact that I watched their child throw food across the table (or whatever similar infraction occurred) at another was either irrelevant or - in their mind - a lie.

So on the basis of my experience I would say that this part of the charter is just as essential for the protection of our most valuable assets (teachers) and it is for our most treasured (children).

But what if the restriction was solely on those with direct interaction with the children? I ask this because I think that and individual that works within the school system could bring some valuable perspectives to the council table. Particularly when issues come up that involve the schools.

Peace,
~Charyn

What currently prevents the schools, or school employees, from bringing a "valuable perspective" to council or the city?

Must they serve in an official capacity with the city to do so?

I think not.

The potential for conflict of interest is just too overwhelming to ignore.

Yes, any citizen can convey their experiences to council and they can campaign and post in forums, etc.

But, citizens are not party to every action, meeting, etc. that council holds. Wouldn't it make sense to have the the experience represented there are as well?

I think so.

The potential for compromise and growth is also to overwhelming to ignore.

All in life does not have to be absolute.

Charyn.